Shoot more deer or see more deer that is the question?

[VSS]

VSS it will not be moved away from the landowners. What has happened in the highlands on the large deer forest will not happen on smaller areas .Localised farmers with small sections of land will not in my opinion bow to pressure from government department,s. Here in the central belt there has been there areas of study all failed the test for environmental improvement. The answer from Nature scot was it would not be feesable to tell these land managers to manager there deer so we will just concentrate up north where the weak will rich public school boys have there play ground,s.

I'm not so sure about that.
Government has a hold on farmers by the short & curlies. Pretty much everything we do is tightly regulated.
Farmers are paranoid about losing support payments if they don't comply with whatever the latest instructions are.
If there's any hint that deer management may be a compulsory part of agri-environment schemes going forward, it will be done. They may not call it a "compulsory culling order" for PC reasons, but that's what it'll effectively be.
And stalkers will be paid, by farmers, to do it. Unless the farmers choose to do it themselves. Either way, they'll need to show that it's being done, either by invoices from stalkers or invoices to game dealers, where a reduction in numbers has been deemed necessary.

 

[AGR]

I'm not so sure about that.
They have a hold on farmers by the short & curlies.
Farmers are paranoid about losing support payments if they don't comply with whatever the latest instructions are.
If there's any hint that deer management may be a compulsory part of agri-environment schemes going forward, it will be done.
And stalkers will be paid, by farmers, to do it. Unless the farmers choose to do it themselves.

If it gets to the point of compulsory deer management I have no doubt that deer 'contractors',or interested parties, will put pressure on ministers to make us all to either be as qualified as the Scots contractors, or actually employ them to do the job.
They do, of course, have much more experience of deer shooting at night than we do!

 

[Borntofarm84]

I'm not so sure about that.
Government has a hold on farmers by the short & curlies. Pretty much everything we do is tightly regulated.
Farmers are paranoid about losing support payments if they don't comply with whatever the latest instructions are.
If there's any hint that deer management may be a compulsory part of agri-environment schemes going forward, it will be done. They may not call it a "compulsory culling order" for PC reasons, but that's what it'll effectively be.
And stalkers will be paid, by farmers, to do it. Unless the farmers choose to do it themselves. Either way, they'll need to show that it's being done, either by invoices from stalkers or invoices to game dealers, where a reduction in numbers has been deemed necessary.

Whist I largely agree with this, as I’m sure you know in the next couple of years there will be no more direct subsidy to landowners on a /ha basis. Under the new SFI scheme landowners and farmers will be payed for delivering specific gains.
So there would be no penalties unless a landowner selected an option to gain funding and then failed to comply with its terms.

There is I believe already an option for the management of deer, but I think it only applies to woodland. However if a landowner had no interest in managing deer numbers he or she just wouldn’t apply for funding.

Also in terms of being able to evidence that a cull has happened, it would be very difficult with the two smaller species,given there is a limited market for selling them and thus incurring an invoice.

Finally who would be responsible for deciding on an individual holding basis what cull was required? An just how much time on a given peice of land would that require?

I’m not really disagreeing with you just can’t get my head around the mechanics

 

[VSS]

Whist I largely agree with this, as I’m sure you know in the next couple of years there will be no more direct subsidy to landowners on a /ha basis. Under the new SFI scheme landowners and farmers will be payed for delivering specific gains.
So there would be no penalties unless a landowner selected an option to gain funding and then failed to comply with its terms.

There is I believe already an option for the management of deer, but I think it only applies to woodland. However if a landowner had no interest in managing deer numbers he or she just wouldn’t apply for funding.

Also in terms of being able to evidence that a cull has happened, it would be very difficult with the two smaller species,given there is a limited market for selling them and thus incurring an invoice.

Finally who would be responsible for deciding on an individual holding basis what cull was required? An just how much time on a given peice of land would that require?

I’m not really disagreeing with you just can’t get my head around the mechanics

Yes, I'm aware of that.
I guess you're also aware of the impending SFS in Wales, in which it is proposed that farmers MUST plant 10% of their land with trees? Now, let's suppose that, at some point in the 5 year lifespan of the scheme, they get an inspection and it's found that deer have scoffed all the trees because the farmer didn't implement proper deer management measures? The farmer would have to repay the funding. Its not a case of not selecting the tree planting option if you don't want to. It's a compulsory element. So, by default, the farmer has no option but to cull the deer whether he likes it or not.
Ok, so that's just an example, and is specific to Wales (where there aren't many deer anyway) but it gives you an idea of the way in which this could be heading.

Incidentally, I do know of a landowner who received a grant of £200,000 to plant a broadleaf woodland. When this was inspected, it was found that a significant number of the young trees had had their tops nipped off by feral goats. The landowner was told he had to employ someone to cull the goats, or repay the £200k

 

[Borntofarm84]

Yes, I'm aware of that.
I guess you're also aware of the impending SFS in Wales, in which it is proposed that farmers MUST plant 10% of their land with trees? Now, let's suppose that, at some point in the 5 year lifespan of the scheme, they get an inspection and it's found that deer have scoffed all the trees because the farmer didn't implement proper deer management measures? The farmer would have to repay the funding. Its not a case of not selecting the tree planting option if you don't want to. It's a compulsory element. So, by default, the farmer has no option but to cull the deer whether he likes it or not.
Ok, so that's just an example, and is specific to Wales (where there aren't many deer anyway) but it gives you an idea of the way in which this could be heading.

Incidentally, I do know of a landowner who received a grant of £200,000 to plant a broadleaf woodland. When this was inspected, it was found that a significant number of the young trees had had their tops nipped off by feral goats. The landowner was told he had to employ someone to cull the goats, or repay the £200k

I was not aware of that option in wales so will defer to your knowledge on that,an in that case I completely agree the landowner would have to implement the cull.
However as things stand in England I know a lot of farmers that will not apply for SFI in its current guise at all. If subsidy is not late enough of too onerous to comply with landowners will simply opt out.


My point really is I think it will be a case of the government incentivising deer management as opposed to penalising the lack of it.
Simply because I can’t see a way of managing or policing it over all types of land holdings. It would have to be every land holding including puplic land an semi urban environments, let alone nature reserves,crown estates an even large gardens.

I agree that your example does indicate a direction of travel though.

 

[VSS]

Also in terms of being able to evidence that a cull has happened, it would be very difficult with the two smaller species,given there is a limited market for selling them and thus incurring an invoice.

One of the proposed methods of evidencing compliance in the Welsh SFS is the use of geotagged photos. That method could easily be used to provide evidence of deer culled, when and where.
Just a thought.

 

[Borntofarm84]

One of the proposed methods of evidencing compliance in the Welsh SFS is the use of geotagged photos. That method could easily be used to provide evidence of deer culled, when and where.
Just a thought.

Very interesting idea.
Not least for whoever has to view all the kill photos…!
However in your scenario would it be necessary to prove cull figures? Would the evidence not simply be wether or no the trees were alive and not eaten by deer? If they were in fact eaten would it save you having to repay the grant even if you could prove a healthy cull?

 

[VSS]

Very interesting idea.
Not least for whoever has to view all the kill photos…!
However in your scenario would it be necessary to prove cull figures? Would the evidence not simply be wether or no the trees were alive and not eaten by deer? If they were in fact eaten would it save you having to repay the grant even if you could prove a healthy cull?

I don't know. I'm only speculating. But I don't for a moment underestimate the control that the government has over farmers and landowners.

 

[Borntofarm84]

I don't know. I'm only speculating. But I don't for a moment underestimate the control that the government has over farmers and landowners.

That I completely agree with.
I am in fact both.
What I am unsure about is whether there is a desire from government to spend tax payers money on deer management. And that is what it would take. ie providing an option, under SFI for example, for management of deer. Similar to WS1 for all land types. If it was lucrative enough it would be adopted. If not and the cost of paying someone to do it was too high it wouldn’t.
It can’t however be compulsory a those land owners who don’t need a return on their land and like a deer sanctuary can still have one.

 

[eldon]

Yep totally agree with this

the problem I see is the lack of demand for venison. I could shoot more deer than I do but I have no outlet for the venison so just give it away to friends. I dont mind this but its a lot of work to prep the meat and theres only so much I can give away. Its actually a deterrent for me to pull the trigger because I see the work after....

 

[nun_hunter]

What incentive (or likely coercion) is available to the government to force deer control on landowners who aren't farming?

All around London, pretty much the entire of the South East is littered with thousands of not hundreds of thousands of privately owned houses or small estates that are just houses for wealthy people whith 50-10 acres. East Sussex is one of if not the most heavily wooded counties in England and a lot of that is small parcels of land that aren't farmed but are just amenity plots or places for some wealthy person's grandkids to play in the woods. They probably have no idea what a healthy woodland looks like, love seeing deer and don't give a monkey's if deer then leave their wood at night and eat some crops next door.

They're not in receipt of grants and I very much doubt the government will be going after them and fining them for an excessive number of deer. It's easy to say "we won't give you money unless you do XYZ" but it's a completely different thing to say to someone with a big house and some land that their going to be billed for deer damage elsewhere.

 

[VSS]

.
It can’t however be compulsory a those land owners who don’t need a return on their land and like a deer sanctuary can still have one.

That's where a compulsory culling order could be brought into play, if deer from the sanctuary were causing damage elsewhere. Exactly the same as the situation with rabbits (and certain other pests) currently, where there is an obligation on land owners to control them.

I am in fact both.

Me too!

 

[Borntofarm84]

What incentive (or likely coercion) is available to the government to force deer control on landowners who aren't farming?

All around London, pretty much the entire of the South East is littered with thousands of not hundreds of thousands of privately owned houses or small estates that are just houses for wealthy people whith 50-10 acres. East Sussex is one of if not the most heavily wooded counties in England and a lot of that is small parcels of land that aren't farmed but are just amenity plots or places for some wealthy person's grandkids to play in the woods. They probably have no idea what a healthy woodland looks like, love seeing deer and don't give a monkey's if deer then leave their wood at night and eat some crops next door.

They're not in receipt of grants and I very much doubt the government will be going after them and fining them for an excessive number of deer. It's easy to say "we won't give you money unless you do XYZ" but it's a completely different thing to say to someone with a big house and some land that their going to be billed for deer damage elsewhere.

A very good point and one that I eluded to earlier.
But if the government were to ‘go after’ the land owners adjacent to these areas that would not be reasonable either.
There is no way of forcing deer management in this scenario as I see it. Unless new laws were created.

 

[Borntofarm84]

That's where a compulsory culling order could be brought into play, if deer from the sanctuary were causing damage elsewhere. Exactly the same as the situation with rabbits (and certain other pests) currently, where there is an obligation on land owners to control them.

Me too!

So what is to stop this from happening at the moment? Genuine question as I don’t know the answer?

 

[eldon]

It’s a point well made. To make a living as a solo producer I work out you will need to sell about 200 deer at that rate to make it workable. That’s not including loans for start up. (Based on average income figures from government)
That is feasible IF you can go out and shoot 200 deer a year and be willing to butcher 4 days a week. Then you need to advertise and sell, possibly at weekends in local farmers markets etc.
it is serious hard graft. Many will not take that on.

And where does this land giving you 200 deer to shoot come from, and at what cost?
Maybe that now needs to be 300 deer to cover costs

 

[nun_hunter]

That's where a compulsory culling order could be brought into play, if deer from the sanctuary were causing damage elsewhere. Exactly the same as the situation with rabbits (and certain other pests) currently, where there is an obligation on land owners to control them.

Me too!

Is the rabbit one for example enforced though? I barely see rabbit netting on fencing anymore and plenty of places dont have anyone or want anyone controlling rabbits so they don't seem to be worried about what the law says.

 

[nun_hunter]

A very good point and one that I eluded to earlier.
But if the government were to ‘go after’ the land owners adjacent to these areas that would not be reasonable either.
There is no way of forcing deer management in this scenario as I see it. Unless new laws were created.

I can see it working as an incentive to continue getting grants or as a condition for getting them going forwards. Maybe huge estates where it could be proven that the deer they hold are responsible for damage or RTCs then something could be done, but how to you go after a few 100 acre landowners who all neighbour each other and share parts of a single large woodland for example? How would this be monitored on a nationwide scale?

 

[HonestJohn]

or women!

To be honest they do a better job in my experience over the last 2 years.

All my cull days bar 1 are a team of women.

Too true! 2 of my prostaff are women and both upcoming in the industry. And very bad ass might I add.

 

[VSS]

So what is to stop this from happening at the moment? Genuine question as I don’t know the answer?

I'm not sure that there's anything stopping it at the moment, to be honest. Only lack of courage, perhaps? Or fear of legal challenge? Or public backlash?

Is the rabbit one for example enforced though? I barely see rabbit netting on fencing anymore and plenty of places dont have anyone or want anyone controlling rabbits so they don't seem to be worried about what the law says.

It certainly can be enforced. Whether it is or not is another matter. I have only heard of one occurrence of it being enforced.

 

[JH83]

A young person starting up a business will get grant funding for a significant proportion of the startup costs.

Anyway, basically what I'm trying to say is that if someone has developed a market for venison, and needs more carcasses to satisfy demand, then they should be given access to land to shoot on, rather than the land being tied up by someone who moans that they can't shift carcasses, or by someone who just shoots one or two for the pot.

Or perhaps the folks with land sells to the individual with the time and business set up at a sensible, but suitably low enough rate as to make it worth both their whiles (say £2.20kg?), and subsequently gets the necessary cull !

It’s a genius, revolutionary idea I know.